Introductory Notice
Archelaus.
————————————
[ 277.] The
Manichæan heresy, which was destined to operate so terribly
against the Church and the purity of the Gospel, encountered its
earliest successful antagonism in the Thebaid; and I have not
doubted the wisdom of prefixing this Disputation to the
veritable name and work of Alexander of Lycopolis, as important to the
complete history of the great Alexandrian school. The Edinburgh
translator of this work regards it as an “authentic relic of
antiquity,” in spite of Beausobre, who treats it as a
romance. I have forced myself, in this republication, to reject
no theory of the Edinburgh collaborators to which I have not been able
to give as much critical attention, at least, as they have evidently
bestowed upon their work. It seems to me a well-sustained
presumption that the work is fundamentally real, and Dr. Neander admits
its base of fact. It is useful, at any rate, in its form and
place, as here presented, and so much may be inferred from the
following:—
Translator’s Introductory
Notice.
memorable
Disputation, which was conducted by a bishop of the name of Archelaus
with the heretic Manes, is mentioned by various writers of an early
date. What
professes to be an account of that Disputation has come down to us in a
form mainly Latin, but with parts in Greek. A considerable
portion of this Latin version was published by Valesius in his edition
of Socrates and Sozomen, and subsequently by others in greater
completeness, and with the addition of the Greek fragments. There
seems to be a difference among the ancient authorities cited above as
to the person who committed these Acts to writing. Epiphanius and Jerome take it to have been Archelaus himself, while Heraclianus, bishop of Chalcedon, represents it to have been a certain person named Hegemonius. In Photius there is a statement to the effect that this Heraclianus, in confuting the errors of the Manichæans, made use of certain Acts of the Disputation of Bishop Archelaus with Manes which were written by Hegemonius. And there are various passages in the Acts themselves which appear to confirm the opinion of Heraclianus. Zacagnius, however, thinks that this is but an apparent discrepancy, which is easily reconciled on the supposition that the book was first composed by Archelaus himself in Syriac, and afterwards edited, with certain amendments and additions, by Hegemonius. That the work was written originally in Syriac is clear, not only from the express testimony of Jerome, but also from internal evidence, and specially from the explanations offered now and again of the use of Greek equivalents. It is uncertain who was the author of the Greek version; and we can only conjecture that Hegemonius, in publishing a new edition, may also have undertaken a translation into the tongue which would secure a much larger audience than the original Syriac. But that this Greek version, by whomsoever accomplished, dates from the very earliest period, is proved by the excerpts given in Epiphanius. As to the Latin interpretation itself, all that we can allege is, that it must in all probability have been published after Jerome’s time, who might reasonably be expected to have made some allusion to it if it was extant in his day; and before the seventh century, because, in quoting the Scriptures, it does not follow the Vulgate edition, which was received generally throughout the West by that period. That the Latin translator must have had before him, not the Syriac, but the Greek copy, is also manifest, not only from the general idiomatic character of the rendering, but also from many nicer indications.